Top 25 talk

[Titan Q]

Its just my opinion Q, not a slight towards IWU.  I was at the Hope/IWU game, you know that.  But it just seems the regular season is being dismissed a little here.

It's a good debate, Scott.

Shouldn't the post-season carry more weight than the regular season?  Isn't that when things matter most?  I guess that is up for debate, but I certainly always evaluate teams by what they do in the NCAA tournament. 

[sac]

Its tricky and I readily acknowledge that.  I guess for me the regular season means a little more or shouldn't be totally dismissed.  There are just too many unfair match-ups and vastly different paths in a tournament that is not properly seeded, my biggest gripe with the D3 tournament.  For instance, can anyone say with certainty Cabrini gets out of the West Sectional(the 16 team bracket) with Whitworth, Whitewater, Wheaton, Va Wesleyan or out of IWU's section?   


I guess I think back to last year's D1 tournament.  Va. Commonwealth finished in the final four and their final ranking was #6.  They didn't get a top 4 automatic vote and also were one shot away from not advancing from the sweet 16.   Kind of similar to IWU, not ranked to start the tournament, beat a number of good teams along the way, lost a close game in the semi's.  I don't recall if they won their conference or not.

[smedindy]

VCU was an at large team last year. That's why they were in the "First Four"

I don't buy the argument that 'one shot away from being eliminated'. A game is much more than one shot, one pass, one turnover. They won. Cabrini got #2 in my fan poll. They deserved it, and I don't buy the 'they wouldn't have won in a different region' deal because you can say that about any team every year. In a one-and-done knockout tournament you have matchups and other issues to deal with along the way. You can say Missouri could have won this year's tourney, except they lost.

[Titan Q]

For instance, can anyone say with certainty Cabrini gets out of the West Sectional(the 16 team bracket) with Whitworth, Whitewater, Wheaton, Va Wesleyan or out of IWU's section? 

Well of course no one can say that with certainty.  But IWU did get out of IWU's section...and then Cabrini beat IWU.

[Titan Q]

sac, who would you rank #2 and #3, and why?  Just curious.

[Mr. Ypsi]

sac, who would you rank #2 and #3, and why?  Just curious.

Ooh, ooh, I know!  But as the compiler of the Posters' Poll, I never rat out a voter!

(Though I know the who, the why is not mine to know. )

[izzy stradlin]

Its just my opinion Q, not a slight towards IWU.  I was at the Hope/IWU game, you know that.  But it just seems the regular season is being dismissed a little here.

It's a good debate, Scott.

Shouldn't the post-season carry more weight than the regular season?  Isn't that when things matter most?  I guess that is up for debate, but I certainly always evaluate teams by what they do in the NCAA tournament.

If you are trying to rank teams from best to worst, regular season should definitely carry more weight.  The reason is that you want the largest sample size possible.   This is especially true with the degree of variability in a sport like basketball. 

The NCAA tournament is a fun way to place a label of national champion on a team, but it's not a very good way to determine which team is college basketball is truly the best.  It's sample size is just much too small for that. 

Ideally, if you wanted to determine what team is the best, you would have each team play an infinite number of games against all of the teams in division 3. Whoever has the best win% is your number 1.   The regular season really isn't that great of a sample size, and the tournament is a horrible one. 

In a 40 minute college basketball game, results are also not highly repeatable when teams are of comparable talent.  In other words, if we played that same tournament again, it would play out entirely different.   The teams that played well over that past few weekends did just that---they played well.   We can't say that they are now playing well.   Again, this is a small sample size of 1-6 games per team and a relatively low degree of repeatably. 

So if we could play some more neutral court games, and I need to rank teams 1-25++ to base high stakes wagers upon,  I want to use the absolute largest quantity of data I can get my hands on. 

(Disclaimer:  I am not a big fan of polls for the purpose they try to serve and I'd rather my team go to the final 4 than finish in the top 4)

[Pat Coleman]

For instance, can anyone say with certainty Cabrini gets out of the West Sectional(the 16 team bracket) with Whitworth, Whitewater, Wheaton, Va Wesleyan or out of IWU's section? 

Well of course no one can say that with certainty.  But IWU did get out of IWU's section...and then Cabrini beat IWU.

Bingo. +1

[rlk]

Its just my opinion Q, not a slight towards IWU.  I was at the Hope/IWU game, you know that.  But it just seems the regular season is being dismissed a little here.

It's a good debate, Scott.

Shouldn't the post-season carry more weight than the regular season?  Isn't that when things matter most?  I guess that is up for debate, but I certainly always evaluate teams by what they do in the NCAA tournament.

If you are trying to rank teams from best to worst, regular season should definitely carry more weight.  The reason is that you want the largest sample size possible.   This is especially true with the degree of variability in a sport like basketball. 

The NCAA tournament is a fun way to place a label of national champion on a team, but it's not a very good way to determine which team is college basketball is truly the best.  It's sample size is just much too small for that. 

Ideally, if you wanted to determine what team is the best, you would have each team play an infinite number of games against all of the teams in division 3. Whoever has the best win% is your number 1.   The regular season really isn't that great of a sample size, and the tournament is a horrible one. 

In a 40 minute college basketball game, results are also not highly repeatable when teams are of comparable talent.  In other words, if we played that same tournament again, it would play out entirely different.   The teams that played well over that past few weekends did just that---they played well.   We can't say that they are now playing well.   Again, this is a small sample size of 1-6 games per team and a relatively low degree of repeatably. 

It's about who wins when it matters most.  That's like any playoff tournament of any kind.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

This year is a tough one because Cabrini's style is so unusual for d3 play (at least at the level they were playing it).  The teams we're used to seeing at the top generally play like Whitewater or IWU - and there's probably some bias that should a team like Whitewater or IWU see Cabrini more than a few times, they'd figure it out.

Is that fair?  Probably not, certainly not from Cabrini's point of view, but in a poll where opinion counts, it does matter.

In my poster's poll, I voted Whitewater #1 and MIT #2.  I know MIT got beat up pretty good, but they did play one of their worst games of the year and they did have some pretty impressive wins on their run (Amherst and F&M are no slouches).

As for Cabrini, I was quite impressed with them and the improvements made over last year.  They do have some glaring weaknesses, which can be exploited (as Whitewater did in the second half of the championship game).  Their style is high risk/high reward.

I don't vote on how a team would do against another in one game and so I can't entirely form an opinion based on one game either.  I try to evaluate the teams over the long haul.  I have less faith in Cabrini beating top teams on a consistent basis than I do for Whitewater or even some of the other final 4, 8 or 16 teams.

Cabrini didn't play a top team until they got to Salem, where they exposed IWU somewhat as being unable to adapt to a different style.

Granted their performances there elevated them in my mind, but I'm not sure they're the #3 team in the country.

[smedindy]

Massey had Cabrini #4 when all was said and done. They did beat Scranton twice, and most everyone in the tourney is top competition, so I don't think the statement that they didn't play a 'top team' is fair.

[Ryan Scott (Hoops Fan)]

Massey had Cabrini #4 when all was said and done. They did beat Scranton twice, and most everyone in the tourney is top competition, so I don't think the statement that they didn't play a 'top team' is fair.

I don't consider Scranton a top team.  Their best game before IWU was Centre, which they lost.  Granted it was over the holidays in Kentucky, so I give them the benefit of the doubt on that one.  After that, it's Scranton and Keystone and Hobart - all good teams, but not serious competition.

I forgot about Eastern Connecticut - that would be the second best team and that game was pretty even.

I think I had Cabrini about #7 or #8 on my final poll.  I think put VaWes, Whitworth, Amherst, and F&M above them (in addition to MIT and Whitewater).  Maybe Hope as well - I don't have my final poll on me right now.

I had all of the final four participants in the top ten; I think they belong there.  Outside of Whitewater, who was clearly the top team most of the year, I think spots 2-10 are pretty subjective at this point, at least for the teams that didn't play each other.  Even then, I think I ranked hope above IWU just by virtue of how close their game was and the season as a whole.

[Titan Q]

Even then, I think I ranked hope above IWU just by virtue of how close their game was and the season as a whole.

Hope (27-2) clearly had a tremendous season and was a Final Four-caliber team, but I think IWU (23-8) has a good case for being ranked higher despite 6 more losses.  First, obviously, IWU won the head-to-head matchup on Hope's floor.  And then when you look at wins over NCAA tournament teams...

IWU
Washington U
Bethany (neutral)
@Staten Island
Wheaton
UW-Stevens Piont (neutral)
@Hope
@Wooster
Wittenberg (neutral)

Hope
Wheaton (neutral)
Westminster (Mo)


IWU lost 8 games, but 6 were to NCAA tournament teams...

@ UW-Whitewater
@ North Central
@ Wheaton
vs North Central
vs Wheaton (neutral)
vs Cabrini (neutral)

(The other two were @ Ripon in a game IWU played without all-CCIW PG Eliud Gonzalez, and @ Augustana - a very solid team.)


According to Massey, IWU played the 2nd strongest schedule in the country.  I think you have to factor in quality of wins and quality of losses in this Top 25 discussion.  What would, say, Amherst's (26-3) record be with IWU's schedule?  We have no way to know, but you kind of have to look at it that way when sorting this all out.

[Greek Tragedy]

Massey had Cabrini #4 when all was said and done. They did beat Scranton twice, and most everyone in the tourney is top competition, so I don't think the statement that they didn't play a 'top team' is fair.

This statement is simply not true, IMHO.  There are automatic qualifiers from conferences that probably would never get a team in if the NCAA picked "the best 62 teams" if everyone was at-large.  Yes, there are upsets, but I could name a few teams that wouldn't sniff the tourney.

I think the regular season should carry more weight than the post season.  I think the post season has more to do with "getting hot" at the right time and winning 5 or 6 games in a row. 

Being from Wisconsin, the Packers were hardly the best team in their Super Bowl year (10-6?), but they got hot at the right time. 

Yes, the post season is where everything counts, but all because someone ends up winning the National Championship, I don't believe they should automatically be voted #1 and the loser of the final be voted #2 (though, in this year's case, I have no problem with that). 

I also think you can't blame the bracket or schedule for a team to get into the Final.  They play who the play, we can't argue that.  Sure, we may think they weren't in the "bracket of death" but we'll never know what would've happened. 

[NEPAFAN]

Massey had Cabrini #4 when all was said and done. They did beat Scranton twice, and most everyone in the tourney is top competition, so I don't think the statement that they didn't play a 'top team' is fair.

I don't consider Scranton a top team.  Their best game before IWU was Centre, which they lost.  Granted it was over the holidays in Kentucky, so I give them the benefit of the doubt on that one.  After that, it's Scranton and Keystone and Hobart - all good teams, but not serious competition.

I forgot about Eastern Connecticut - that would be the second best team and that game was pretty even.

I think I had Cabrini about #7 or #8 on my final poll.  I think put VaWes, Whitworth, Amherst, and F&M above them (in addition to MIT and Whitewater).  Maybe Hope as well - I don't have my final poll on me right now.

I had all of the final four participants in the top ten; I think they belong there.  Outside of Whitewater, who was clearly the top team most of the year, I think spots 2-10 are pretty subjective at this point, at least for the teams that didn't play each other.  Even then, I think I ranked hope above IWU just by virtue of how close their game was and the season as a whole.

You have Scranton confused with Misercordia. Scranton never played Centre.